PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS

in

NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. ALL PERSONS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IN SELF DEFENSE BUT SHALL BE LIABLE TO ALL CONSEQUENCES THEREOF.

I PROPOSE THIS AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO ENABLE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY TO BEAR ARMS IN SELF DEFENSE. HOWEVER, SUCH RIGHT IS NOT ABSOLUTE IN THE SENSE THAT THERE IS LIABILITY TO ANYTHING THAT MAY ARISE AS A CONSEQUNCE OF THE EXERCISE OF SAID RIGHT. I SUBMIT THAT THIS WILL BE A FAIR COMPROMISE TO ALL SECTORS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ANTIGUN ZEALOTS AND THE IANSA, BECAUSE OF THE EXPRESS IMPOSITION OF A LIABILITY IN CASE OF A WRONGFUL USE OR NEGLIGENT HANDLING OF FIREARMS. SUCH RIGHT IS AVAILABLE ONLY IF THE INTENTION IS FOR SELF DEFENSE BUT NOT IN CASES IF IT WILL BE USED IN THE COMMISSION OF FELONIES SUCH AS THOSE DEFINED IN CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS, PROPERTY, CHASTITY, PEACE AND ORDER AND SECURITY OF THE NATION. THIS IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO FIREARMS BUT TO ANY KIND OF WEAPON THAT ANY CITIZEN MAY WANT TO ARMS HIMSELF SUCH AS BLADED OR BLUNT WEAPONS.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ADD YOUR COMMENT AND LETS DISCUSS THIS THOROUGHLY.

 

Not a lawyer, need clarification

Admittedly not a lawyer, pardon me if I've misunderstood.  Points of clarification or recommentation:

>  Is a woman not entitled to utilize a firearm/weapon in defense of chastity?  What about attempted abduction?  Threat to life may not be immediately ascertained but the posssibly most certainly exist.

>  In a situation of self defense, would it not be possible to shift the burden of proof from the "defender" to the accuser (person claiming that it was NOT self defense).  The case may still be appreciated on the basis of the 3 key elements which constitutes self defense however as in all other cases, the burden of proof should be the burden of the person/party claiming that is not lawful self defense.

>  Is it possible for a situation of self defense not to be elevated to a case for court hearing if the investigation as conducted by the appropriate law enforcement agency yeilds no finding to doubt otherwise?  I believe that in the States, unless investigation yeilds doubt as to the veracity of a claim of lawful self defense, the "defender" is normally immediately released with his/her firearm returned. Such may be in coordination with the public prosecutors office ... the point is the case need not be automatically elevated to the courts unless material doubt exist.

>  Should gun ownership be enshrined as a right,  would there be a shirt to qualifying the person for ownership and carry,  similar to qualifying individuals to drive vehicles.  In practical terms, when a person is qualified to carry, all legally registered firearms may be carried by said person without need for PTCOR for each and every firearm unit.

>  To help insure that firearms ownership remains a right and not transformed to a privilege in practical terms, provisions which would cause ownership to become an economic burden should not be allowed.  Possibly a one time registration of every firearm with the legal obligation to report theft or loss (as an example).  No tax burden should also be attached to firearms should ownership become a right (it should then be regarded as a need) rather than a privilege (where it is regarded as a want).

>  Should firearm ownership become a right, I believe some "items" currently requiring registration need to be reclassified (eg. air rifles, bullet proof vest)

I'm sure other people have clarfications / recommendations.  Stop na muna ako.  :)

My reply

First, self defense includes defense of person, honor, chastity and property.But self defense should be commensurate to the threat or unlawful aggression against her person.

 

Second, no when you interpose self defense in the commission of homicide, frustrated homicide or attempted homicide you are already admitting its commission albeit justified. It will still be the court which will determine if the requisites of self defense are all attendant for it to be appreciated so that you will not incur any criminal liability. Kaya hindi pwede magshift yung burden kasi inamin mo na na ikaw yung gumawa nung sinasabing krimen pero justified naman dahil self defense nga.

 

Third, in our jurisdiction, its the courts only can determine if the elements of self defense were met by the one invoking it. Besides, fiscals can only determine probable cause and if you say that your defense is self defense there is already probable cause to hold you for trial. Mabuti na dumaan sa court para mag set in na ang double jeopardy so that you may not be charged again.

 

Fourth, gunownership is still a privelege in this country and not until we amend the bill of rights by including the right of all persons to bear arms in self defense, it will remain as such. Although I believe that even if it becomes a right it should be regulated also.

 

 

 

Ano po ang pinagkaiba?

Pasensya na po kayo sir pero hindi ko po makita kung anong praktikal na pagbabago ang magaganap sakaling maging karapatan ang magmamay-ari ng baril (at pagtatanggol sa sarili at mga mahal sa buhay) imbis na pribilehiyo kasi lahat ng binanggit ninyo ay alinsunod sa mga pangkasalukuyang pamantayan.

Katulad po halimbawa nung katanungan na --- sa pagkakataon bang sa pagsisiyasat ng pulis sa kaganapan ay wala itong naungkat o nakitang pagdududa na pagtatanggol sa sarili ang naganap na pangyayari, pwede bang hindi na magkaroon ng pormal na kaso laban sa nagtanggol sa sarili?  O kaya kung may pagdinig mang magaganap, hindi kailangang pansamantalang ikulong ang nagtanggol sa sarili, hindi rin kailangang magpiyansa ... dahil base sa imbistigasyon ng pulis ay wala itong nakitang pag-aalinlangan.  Thus, until and unless proven otherwise the "defender" retains his freedom with no need to post bail.

Pinunto ko po ito dahil sa nababasa kong balita sa net o paminsan-minsan sa pahayagan, sa States kapag sa imbistigasyon ng pulis ay wala itong nakitang pagdududa na pagtatanggol sa sarili ang naganap, wala nang kasong hinahabla.  Or it's the public atty's office which decides that there is no basis to file a case.  This usually happens specially in cases of shop owners defending their establishments, their customers and their personal safety specially where there is video evidence that clearly shows what took place.

Naniniwala din po ako na kahit maging ganap na karapat ang pagmamay-ari ng baril, may mga restriksyon parin ito.  However, these can not be "artificial" restrictions such as economic status, racial background, educational attaintment, sex and the like.  Restrictions would probably be age of maturity (maybe 21), mental/psychological stability, criminal conviction, drug dependency and the like.  Consequently, the economics of firearms ownership must not be restrictive otherwise in real terms it would remain to be a privilege.  I'm referring of course to fees related to legitimate ownership of firearms.

Pasensya na pong muli kung mali lang ang pagkakaintindi ko pero wala po kasi akong nabanaag na pagbabago dahil sunod parin lahat ng binanggit ninyo sa pangkasalukuyang pamantayan.

 

My Comments 2

Alam mo bilang isang abugado dito sa Pilipinas sinagot ko ang katanungan mo na naaayon sa batas at alituntunin ng hukuman sa bayang ito. Hindi kita maaring sagutin ng naayon sa mga nababasa mo sa internet o sa mga nagaganap sa ibang bansa. Kung kaya ng magtanong ka ng tungkol sa self defense ay sinagot kita ng tuwiran na ayon sa nagaganap dito sa Pilipinas.

Dito ang nagsasakdal o nagdedemanda ng kasong kriminal ay ang piskal o district attorney sa Amerika. Sila ang nagsisisiyasat kung mayroong basehan ang paghahabla ng kaso. They are the ones who determine probable cause and in your example when a homicide or frustrated homicide or attempted homicide was committed and the person who committed it invokes self defense then there is nothing for the fiscal to determine because the person who invokes self defense has already admitted that he was the one who committed the crime although his defense was that it was done in self defense. Kaya walang probable cause na kailangan pang malaman, kasi inamin na eh. One more thing, in case of homicide, the State is always interested to know if the person who killed another is liable for it or not. This is the reason why the public prosecutor always file cases almost automatically in cases of self defense. Furthermore, when self defense is invoked inverted ang trial, baligtad ang pagdinig sa halip na mauna ang piskal na patunayan ang kaso laban sa iyo ay ang nasasakdal ang mauuna upang patunayan na self defense nga ang kanyang ginawa. In our judicial system, it is not the fiscal who will determine if self defense was exercise properly, if all the requisites were present, it will still be the courts who has the sole power to determine if your act was justified or not. Kung hindi ka haharap sa hukuman, sino ang magsasabi na hindi mo nga kasalanan ang nangyari o di kaya ay ipinagtanggol mo lamang ang iyong sarilli? Sino ang magsasabing tama ang mga ebidensyang iniharap mo sa hukuman? Ang huwes lamang.

Marahil yung mga nababasa mo ay hindi nagbibigay ng kumpletong pagpapaliwanag sa mga naganap. Halimbawa, yung kwento mo tungkol sa mga shopkeepers na nakabaril ng mga holdupper, kahit na may video pa na kitang kita na self defense nga ang dahilan ng pagkakabaril ng mga salarin ay ang hukuman lamang ang pwedeng magsabi na ganito nga ang nangyari at walang criminal liability ang mga nakabaril sa kanila. Siguro kaya hindi nag file ng kaso yung mga pulis sa amerika ay marahil walang testigo o walang naghabol na kamaganak ng mga napatay.

Regarding the issue of gun ownership as a right or privilege, if it is a right, we cannot be deprived of it without due process of law. Kahit pa sabihin mo na ang karapatan is subject to regulations, a right is still a right.Kailangan muna ng proseso bago tanggalin sa atin ang ating mga baril. BUt if it is only a privilege anytime the government can exercise its prerogrative to deprive you of that privilege sans due process of law. Hindi nga ba yan ang ruling sa Otis Mcdonald vs City of Chicago na hindi maaaring ipagkait ang karapatang ng mga amerikano sa ilalim ng ikalawang susog ng hindi kinikilala ang kanilang karapatan sa ilalim ng ikalabing-apat na susog ng kanilang Saligang Batas. There lies the fundamental difference. 

This is my professional opinion. If you think otherwise, you are entitled to it. I will not debate with you anymore.

Sensys po, walang intensyon makipagtalo.

Di ko po naman gustong makipagtalo, ang gusto ko lang po ay malinawan.

Siyempre po sang-ayon akong maging karapatan ng mga mamamayan ang pagmamay-ari ng baril,  kaya nga po tayo magkakasama sa forum na ito.

Ini-isip ko lang po na ang mga basic rights na bahagi ng konstitution ay siyang magiging basihan ng mga partikular na batas.  Essentially all laws must support the rights enshrined by the constitution and consequently no law may be formulated contrary to those rights. I also expect that operational procedures, quidelines, requirements and fees would not "deminish or under value this right".

Dun ko po gustong maliwanagan.  Kung magiging matagumpay tayo na maging karapatan ang pag-aari ng armas imbis na sa kasalukuyang pagiging pribilehiyo ... alin po sa mga pangkasalukuyang mga batas, patakaran at mga proseso ang magbabago?

Bukod po sa batayang usapin na hindi maaring ipagkait ng estado mula sa akin na mag-ari ng armas ng walang konkretong dahilan,  sa aling mga bagay o mga pamamaraan ko pa po ito mararamdaman o pakikinabangan?

Halimbawa po:  Kung tataasan masyado ng pamahalaan ang mga singil para makapag-ari tayo ng armas, maliit na bahagi lamang ng mamamayan ang makakakaya nito.  As such, in real terms it is so difficult to appreciate that it has indeed become a right because the economic constraints cause it to be a privilege.

Isa pa po, yung threat assessment as a rquirement for issuance of PTCOR.  Alam naman natin na ang isang masamang pangyayari ay basta nalamang dumadating.  Kung patuloy pong magiging requirement ang threat assessment, parang hindi parin isang patuloy na karapatan ang pagiging handang ipagtanggol ang sarili.

Ganoon po ang paglilinaw na hinihiling ko sa inyo.  Kapag naging karapatan na ito, paano ko ito malalasap biling isang tunay na karapatan.  What specific changes may I look forward to?

Yun lang po, pasensya na pong muli kung hindi naging maganda ang dating ko sa inyo,

Back to topic

Ok back to topic guys :)

The original post by JJFAT was a draft proposal for a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. We do NOT, as yet , have a provision in our Constitution granting citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Hence, the suggested draft proposal amendment.

Mandaragit, your queries relate already to the DETAILS or SPECIFICS of criminal law and criminal procedure. Constitutional provisions are by nature more GENERAL. So all these issues are about fiscals, prosecutors, murder/homicide, courts, are more appropriately addressed in a separate thread on that topic.

So the basic question posed is: what is the PRACTICAL EFFECT of the inclusion of the proposed Constitution Amendment granting citizens the right to keep and bear arms?

Answer:

1. Once the right to keep and bear arms is included in the Consitution as a right, then no later administration or congress can pass a law or rule which would prohibit the ownership of firearms or ban their possession. Moreover, no future Verzosa could make such restrictive policies so as to make it so difficult, if not impossible, to comply with, which is tantamount to a gun ban. Such act would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore VOID. As a result, our right to keep and bear arms would be more SECURE.

2. In such case, we may do aways with gun registration and licensing altogether. PTCFOR requirements could also be questioned. Since ownership of a gun shall be made a matter of right, we could also question the licensing PTCFOR fees as being UNDULY HARSH AND RESTRICTIVE. Excessively high gun fees would be deemed as discriminatory and confiscatory, thus making it beyond the means for ordinary citizens to possess firearms and impairing the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

3. The right to bear arms could also be an aid to citizens in defending themselves in the use of deadly force. If bearing a firearm is a right then its use in a self-defense killing, could be more appropriately JUSTIFIED in court, as a necessary LAWFUL MEANS to protect oneself.

Salamat sir

Salamat sir, the 3 examples on the "practical effects" should gun ownership become a right rather than it's present state as a privilege is part of what I hoped to be clarified on.

Much as it is reassuring to know that several people are tirelessly pursuing this aspiration, the participation of more legitimate gun owners in advocacy is necessary to attain a critical mass of public opinion.  Habang sumulong kayo sa antas ng pagsasabatas dapat lang na gumagapang kami sa hanay ng mga mamamayan.

On your front, at this point it is a policy struggle (general as you put it), ang haharapin ninyo ay yung mga halal na mambabatas.  Kaming nais tumulong sa advocacy, ang haharapin namin ay yung mga pangkaraniwang mamamayan.  Sa hanay na yon, the proposed constitutional ammendment can best be appreciated if they can understand how it would impact on us as a people on a practical level.  Ganoon naman po talaga ang tanong ng pangkaraniwang mamamayan ... ano bang pagbabago ang posible naming asahan kapag naging ganap na karapatan yan?

Kaya po ako humihiling ng paglilinaw dahil hindi din tamang tumulong kami sa advocacy batay sa personal naming kuro-kuro ng mga posibleng pagbabagong magaganap ... malamang "false promises and mixed signals" ang bagsak non.  We need guidance before we reach out to our relatives, friends or grab at every opportunity to popularize our cause.

On the matter of the constitutional ammendment, personally my desire revolves around two key elements:  1) LIFE - to capture the right to defend ones life and that of his/her love ones; and  2) LIBERTY - to capture the right and obligation of the people to organize, bear arms and struggle for love of country against a foreign aggressor or a domestic tyrrant/dictatorial government.  I'm not too inclined on property.  Kayo na po bahala sa proper wording.

Salamat pong muli.

Need something more specific.

I would prefer this wording, taken from the República Cantonal de Negros' Proposed 1899 Constitution:

Article I. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

Sec. 5. The right of the citizen to keep arms in defense of his home and the right to bear arms by an organized militia created for the protection of the state must not be infringed. [...]

Though, admittedly, I'm sure some slick gun grabber can lawyer this around to saying" "See? The Constitution makes no mention of allowing guns outside the house!"

The original Sec. 5 had a rejoinder prohibiting concealed carry:

[...] Carrying of concealed weapons, however, cannot be countenanced without a permit from proper authority.

This was due to the predominant Iberian attitude at the time that gentlemen carried their weapons openly and honestly while only criminals and assassins had reason to conceal their intentions to use weapons.

Times have changed however. You don't have a genteel society anymore. What you want is to keep tyrants guessing which of the sheep are armed.

 

===== LINKS FOR LIBERTY =====

The New Commonwealth Herald (COMING SOON): An on-line newspaper and Internet portal offering traditional perspectives and political-economic solutions to current events in the Philippines. 100% ProGUN.

===

Filipinos for Ron Paul (Facebook Group): Join us in exploring the philosophical origins of the Propaganda and Revolutionary Movement during the War of Independence & assisting to educate Filipinos into recognizing their natural individual rights to life, liberty, and property. 100% ProGUN.

===

Libertarian Philippines (Manila): The Filipino libertarian tradition is Iberian in origin, and owes more to the Spanish Constitution of 1812 and Corpus Juris Civiles of Justinian than the Anglo-American Common Law. All expats are welcome! 100% ProGUN.

===

 

 

Subject to style and the rules of the Con Con or Con Ass

What is important is we can insert a sentence or a phrase in the bill of rights that will make gun ownership or being armed fro that matter a constitutional right so that our government or the agencies that makes it up will not trample on our rights randomly and wantonly. Your suggestions are most welcome. If we can have the same provision as the second amendment why not? Perhaps we can insert it in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies......specifically Article 2 Section 5 where we can add a phrase about being armed in protecting ones self... or if you can suggest a better part of the Constitution to insert it we will welcome it.

 

kindly visit pinoyguns

Bro Atty.s' I pray you don't mind, I initiated a thread in pinoyguns pertaining to the proposed constitutional ammendment as to the citizens right to bear arms.

My primary motivation for doing so was that I noticed that a lot of bros may not have been able to visit the progun forum at nanghihinayang po ako sa kahalagahan ng tunguhin ninyo para sa ating lahat.

Kindly visit pinoyguns and hopefully you can gather data as the sentiments and values of our fellow gun enthusiast within that forum.

Salamat po ang more power to all of you who are leading this effort.

Just contributing any means possible to this gargantuan task.

good development!

Hope this will go on!

my amendment proposals

the right of the citizens to be armed for self defense against oppression and tyranny.